IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags e-mail scandals , Eric Hothem , hillary clinton , politics scandals

Closed Thread
Old 8th March 2015, 02:38 PM   #321
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,717
Whether or not she broke laws or procedures is not the problem, at least not for me. I would like to know why she did it.

I would ask this of any elected official, and I think anybody involved in this discussion who is defending her would ask the same questions if it had been someone they didn't like, say a Republican. Would you be defending a Republican to the same degree? It's a question one should always ask themselves: would it be okay if the other team did it?

It is reasonable to question why any politician would set up their own email server at home for government business. It is reasonable to question a politicians motives about anything they do. My automatic response when a politician does something that appears a bit fishy is to assume they had bad intentions and work from there. I don't give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to politicians, I do the opposite.

The fact that her actions come close enough to breaking rules or laws as to create this controversy tells me that she was calculated in just how far she could take this. You guys can pull laws and regulations out all week, but the fact that people need to scrutinize the laws to such a degree in order to prove her innocence only strengthens my suspicions as to her motives.

The public should absolutely question her actions and motives in this matter. Simply put, she's a politician, she works for us, and what she did appears sneaky.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 02:39 PM   #322
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
gaps in Hillary's emails.

You didn't really think she was going to voluntarily turn over all the emails did you?

FBI ought to seize that sever NOW.
That may be what she wants, you know? Change the narrative into being the victim.
Hillary delays, FBI seizes, they find nothing, Hillary wins! See?
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 02:45 PM   #323
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,990
I've read the thread and my confusion has increased as I've made my way through it!

Can some please tell me in simple language: What exactly is she meant to have done that is illegal?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:03 PM   #324
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've read the thread and my confusion has increased as I've made my way through it!

Can some please tell me in simple language: What exactly is she meant to have done that is illegal?
Theft of governmental documents.

Of course, many of us are not as obsessed with whether hillary actively committed a felony as with what it reveals about her character and lack thereof.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:18 PM   #325
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Whether or not she broke laws or procedures is not the problem, at least not for me. I would like to know why she did it.

I would ask this of any elected official, and I think anybody involved in this discussion who is defending her would ask the same questions if it had been someone they didn't like, say a Republican. Would you be defending a Republican to the same degree? It's a question one should always ask themselves: would it be okay if the other team did it?
As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary with the exception of one, where was the outrage when they all did the same?

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
It is reasonable to question why any politician would set up their own email server at home for government business. It is reasonable to question a politicians motives about anything they do. My automatic response when a politician does something that appears a bit fishy is to assume they had bad intentions and work from there. I don't give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to politicians, I do the opposite.
Is it really reasonable to question why a Hillary did it, when every previous Secretary of State with the exception of one used personal email without anyone batting an eye? It seems to be grasping at straws, to me.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
The fact that her actions come close enough to breaking rules or laws as to create this controversy tells me that she was calculated in just how far she could take this. You guys can pull laws and regulations out all week, but the fact that people need to scrutinize the laws to such a degree in order to prove her innocence only strengthens my suspicions as to her motives.

The public should absolutely question her actions and motives in this matter. Simply put, she's a politician, she works for us, and what she did appears sneaky.
Indeed, a politician following the same standards as their predecessors with regard to personal email is obviously going to appear sneaky and cause controversy.

Last edited by wareyin; 8th March 2015 at 03:34 PM. Reason: edited for sunmaster14's nitpick
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:19 PM   #326
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've read the thread and my confusion has increased as I've made my way through it!

Can some please tell me in simple language: What exactly is she meant to have done that is illegal?
The documents (including electronic records) produced by employees of the federal government, while doing government business, are considered property of the federal government. Government employees, as well as the agencies for which they work, must take measures to archive all of these documents in official recordkeeping systems, where they can be safely stored and searched and accessed when needed. The need for these documents can arise from litigation, investigations, or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Hillary Clinton created tens of thousands of emails which were related to her work as Secretary of State, and yet were not stored in an agency (in this case, the Department of State) recordkeeping system. Not only did Department of State archivists and lawyers not have access to these emails while she was Secretary of State, they didn't even know about them (let alone have access to them) until a couple of weeks ago. We know that the Department of State did not know about these emails because they responded to a very specific FOIA request about Hillary's private emails by saying that it had nothing responsive to the request.

The regulations which were in force since 2009 (and actually since 1995, but the wording was clarified in 2009) required that the Department of State (which Hillary ran of course) store all of these emails in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

Some people here are quibbling about the meaning of the word "appropriate," which I think is an embarrassingly absurd dodge. I don't even think Hillary's flacks are brazen enough to try that. Instead they seem to be trying to cause confusion by misdirection. They're trying to defend Hillary's use of a private email account, which was perfectly legal actually (and remains legal, even to this day), and distract from the fact that her emails were kept outside the recordkeeping system and have lacked any type of objective, 3rd party controls for many years. She evidently had plenary power to delete emails and erase all trace that they existed, as long as her email counterparty was not using a government email address.

As I mentioned before, it is technically possible for Hillary, if she wanted, to argue that it wasn't she who broke the recordkeeping law, but rather the agency of which she was in charge. I think, however, if she were to make that argument, she would open herself up to liability under laws concerning the corruption of her public office. She might want to talk to Sen. Bob Menendez before she goes that route, though.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:21 PM   #327
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've read the thread and my confusion has increased as I've made my way through it!

Can some please tell me in simple language: What exactly is she meant to have done that is illegal?
Why, she is a woman, a Democrat, married Bill Clinton, and worked for Obama! If that isn't illegal, I don't know what is? Ignore the silly facts that she followed every procedure and law that was in effect at the time of her actions, we will just have to make something up that fits!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:25 PM   #328
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Some people here are quibbling about the meaning of the word "appropriate," which I think is an embarrassingly absurd dodge. I don't even think Hillary's flacks are brazen enough to try that. Instead they seem to be trying to cause confusion by misdirection. They're trying to defend Hillary's use of a private email account, which was perfectly legal actually (and remains legal, even to this day), and distract from the fact that her emails were kept outside the recordkeeping system and have lacked any type of objective, 3rd party controls for many years. She evidently had plenary power to delete emails and erase all trace that they existed, as long as her email counterparty was not using a government email address.

As I mentioned before, it is technically possible for Hillary, if she wanted, to argue that it wasn't she who broke the recordkeeping law, but rather the agency of which she was in charge. I think, however, if she were to make that argument, she would open herself up to liability under laws concerning the corruption of her public office. She might want to talk to Sen. Bob Menendez before she goes that route, though.
LSSBB posted the relevant definition of "appropriate". Care to point out which passage Hillary was in violation of?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:25 PM   #329
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary, where was the outrage when they all did the same?



Is it really reasonable to question why a Hillary did it, when every previous Secretary of State used personal email without anyone batting an eye? It seems to be grasping at straws, to me.



Indeed, a politician following the same standards as their predecessors with regard to personal email is obviously going to appear sneaky and cause controversy.
Damn, they all had their own cowboy servers?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:28 PM   #330
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary, where was the outrage when they all did the same?
Condi Rice was the Secretary of State immediately preceding Hillary Clinton. Condi Rice used a government email address, and it has never been credibly alleged that she ever used a private one for conducting official business.

Perhaps you'd like to rewrite your post with that information in mind. Or probably just delete the whole thing and replace it with an Emily Litella quote.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:33 PM   #331
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Condi Rice was the Secretary of State immediately preceding Hillary Clinton. Condi Rice used a government email address, and it has never been credibly alleged that she ever used a private one for conducting official business.

Perhaps you'd like to rewrite your post with that information in mind. Or probably just delete the whole thing and replace it with an Emily Litella quote.
Very well, I will amend my post to read every predecessor "with the exception of one". Clearly, that defeats the entire point that it was common, routine, practice by virtually every Secretary of State until Kerry.

Last edited by wareyin; 8th March 2015 at 03:35 PM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:33 PM   #332
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
LSSBB posted the relevant definition of "appropriate". Care to point out which passage Hillary was in violation of?
Well, for starters, her recordkeeping system wasn't an agency recordkeeping system once she was no longer Secretary of State, right? Even if it could be argued (frivolously in my opinion) that her private system was an agency system because she was the head of the agency, that wouldn't apply to the last two years.

In any case, at a minimum she was in violation of subparagraphs (5),(6), and (7), since nobody at the agency (i.e. Department of State) who was in charge of recordkeeping, nor at the National Archives and Record Administration, had access to, let alone knowledge of, her records.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:34 PM   #333
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,864
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ignore the silly facts that she followed every procedure and law that was in effect at the time of her actions, we will just have to make something up that fits!
Except for the fact that the government is unable to comply with FOIA requests which it is legally obligated to do by law because the emails by default are on a server other than the servers from which public servant's emails are supposed to be archived... Whether or not she strictly broke laws seems to fall under a loop hole, but the issue dealing with the gov's obligations to comply with FOIA's on this matter and the complications that arise from her actions is the crux of the problem
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 8th March 2015 at 03:35 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:37 PM   #334
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Very well, I will amend my post to read every predecessor "with the exception of one". Clearly, that defeats the entire point that it was common, routine, practice by virtually every Secretary of State until Kerry.
You mean all one of them (i.e. Colin Powell), or did those old fossils - Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher - know how to use email back in the 1990s?
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:38 PM   #335
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, for starters, her recordkeeping system wasn't an agency recordkeeping system once she was no longer Secretary of State, right? Even if it could be argued (frivolously in my opinion) that her private system was an agency system because she was the head of the agency, that wouldn't apply to the last two years.

In any case, at a minimum she was in violation of subparagraphs (5),(6), and (7), since nobody at the agency (i.e. Department of State) who was in charge of recordkeeping, nor at the National Archives and Record Administration, had access to, let alone knowledge of, her records.
I find extremely odd the claim that no one knew the email address that they used to email Hillary, or that she replied to them with.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:43 PM   #336
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I find extremely odd the claim that no one knew the email address that they used to email Hillary, or that she replied to them with.
If you read my post more carefully, you will find that I did not claim that nobody knew. Obviously, many people knew, although it's not clear that even those people knew the extent of her private email usage. The important point is that those who respond to FOIA requests did not know.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 03:46 PM   #337
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You mean all one of them (i.e. Colin Powell), or did those old fossils - Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher - know how to use email back in the 1990s?
Perhaps you missed or forgot this, which was posted earlier?

Like secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any department officials,” spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement. “For government business, she emailed them on their department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained.”
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:26 PM   #338
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
And this adds to the discussion, how?



Oh, I see.
Well... I have been on this forum for over six years, and I have yet to report a single post for any perceived rule violation.

Whether or not you think my comment adds to the discussion, my argument should be clear enough. I see this email controversy as yet more alarmist hand-wringing with little substance.

You can agree or disagree. But your response, instead, is to impugn me personally by suggesting a malicious agenda. Perhaps I could complain, which tends to support the point I made in FMF, which you chose to quote here. I won't, because it's not my agenda.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:34 PM   #340
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
If you read my post more carefully, you will find that I did not claim that nobody knew. Obviously, many people knew, although it's not clear that even those people knew the extent of her private email usage. The important point is that those who respond to FOIA requests did not know.
What they did not know is that she never turned ANY emails that she keeps on her cowboy/homebrew server over to the government, and still has not done so.

The funny thing is that so many people are running cover for her, and her entire comment on the issue is one spectacularly cynical tweet.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:34 PM   #341
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
.

Whether or not you think my comment adds to the discussion, my argument should be clear enough. I see this email controversy as yet more alarmist hand-wringing with little substance.
This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:37 PM   #342
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:43 PM   #343
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.
You'll never see them all. Billary has purged them.

You don't think she set up a server in her bedroom to share her emails with the American people do you?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:46 PM   #344
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You'll never see them all. Billary has purged them.

You don't think she set up a server in her bedroom to share her emails with the American people do you?
Yes but what if she didn't disclose certain ones that are floating out there? Or if she lied in some way about what was disclosed.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:47 PM   #345
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.
I actually agree. If Clinton acted in violation of the law she should be punished accordingly and publicly critisized. If she acted aaccording to the letter of the law but against the spirit, she still deserves critisism.

If this all turns out to be another faux scandal, however, I trust her detractors will speak up and apologize, right?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:50 PM   #346
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And piggy-backing on Nova Land's points, I'm also not seeing where "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" is defined, and where a personal email account is explicitly defined as not being "appropriate".
Once she left that office/post, I'd think that her servers would no longer be an agency recordkeeping system.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary with the exception of one, where was the outrage when they all did the same?
I had no idea. I find that to be concerning.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 05:57 PM   #347
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
This is what I'm getting at.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...shannen-coffin
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 06:00 PM   #348
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I actually agree. If Clinton acted in violation of the law she should be punished accordingly and publicly critisized. If she acted aaccording to the letter of the law but against the spirit, she still deserves critisism.

If this all turns out to be another faux scandal, however, I trust her detractors will speak up and apologize, right?
Well considering there are 11,000 pending foia requests that will be further delayed because Hillary was playing games with her private server, I'll apologize right after Hillary does.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 06:46 PM   #349
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by logger View Post
This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.
Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 06:53 PM   #350
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.
Oh gee, Noahfence is angry we are talking about Hillary again, so is actively trying to another thread jack with a b-bu-bu-BUSH!

Say, Noah, your post is a false dichotomy. We can talk about both things!

Why don't you go post an Iraq war thread in...... History, and the rest of us will be there shortly.

Leave Hillary alone! Check!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 06:59 PM   #351
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I find extremely odd the claim that no one knew the email address that they used to email Hillary, or that she replied to them with.
Very odd. Obama stated he didn't know either. Of course, he must have known but why say he did not?

If it's all "no big deal" and above board to have her own server, then why is she so quiet about it? She should just state what her intentions were and why having it was better for America and the effectiveness of her high-level position and stop all the headlines.

People seem to be defending her mostly on legal terms. I'm more concerned with professional ethics and integrity. Like, when she set it up her first day in the role, what was she thinking? Did Obama not use .gov either? Do lots of senior govt officials also use their own servers and keep hush about it? What was the rationale for her decision?
There might be a good reason, but I haven't heard it yet!
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:06 PM   #352
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.
That is what this thread is about.

"But she isn't as bad as xxx" is just such a terrible argument. (Moral equivalence anyone?)
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:13 PM   #353
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
That is what this thread is about.

"But she isn't as bad as xxx" is just such a terrible argument. (Moral equivalence anyone?)
It's a tu-quoque argument, and I wish people knew better than to use it.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:51 PM   #354
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by logger View Post
This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.
Well, if it's any consolation to you, I cannot stand Hillary Clinton. It's visceral rather than political. And I understand why people see Bill Clinton as a sleazy guy.

BUT, however bad the Clintons may be, they bring out the absolute WORST in their enemies. For all the investigating that went on in the 90s, they never came up with anything of substance. That is why they had to drag Monica Lewinski through the mud. You say Clinton exploited her, but she was dogging him. She would have looked back on her affair with him as fun adventure if it had remained a private matter between consenting adults.

And then they locked up Susan MacDougal because she refused to participate in their witch hunt. That was pretty ruthless.

Republicans have damaged and even destroyed their own careers in this mad pursuit. Ken Starr could have been a Supreme Court Justice. Bob Livingston could have been Speaker of the House. Where are they now?

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a journalist for whom I have tremendous admiration, took a wrecking ball to her reputation when she published an unsubstantiated rape allegation, which everyone now agrees is both implausible and lacking credibility.

So, I'm a bit jaded whenever the right-wing anger machine gets going on the Clintons. We'll see where this latest fit of apoplexy goes. I'm guessing nowhere.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:22 PM   #355
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,548
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
We'll see where this latest fit of apoplexy goes. I'm guessing nowhere.
I'm betting you are right. When even Darrell Issa doesn't think there is a case, where else can it go?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6826064.html
Quote:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has long alleged cover-ups in the Clinton State Department, said Sunday morning that Clinton's email dealings were shady, but not illegal.

"Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really," Issa said on CNN.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:39 PM   #356
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,548
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Well considering there are 11,000 pending foia requests
11,000?

Did they get a bulk discount?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:43 PM   #357
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
11,000?

Did they get a bulk discount?
Yes. 11,000 foia requests.

Lots of people care about governmental transparency.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2015, 05:19 AM   #358
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It's a tu-quoque argument, and I wish people knew better than to use it.
It's not necessarily a tu quoque. It could be just an intentional derail. This is often the case I think when people post like this. They're either guilty of a logical fallacy or a Rule 11 breach, but not necessarily both.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2015, 05:27 AM   #359
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post

<snip>

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a journalist for whom I have tremendous admiration, took a wrecking ball to her reputation when she published an unsubstantiated rape allegation, which everyone now agrees is both implausible and lacking credibility.
Everyone? From everything I've read and seen, it is both plausible and credible. A hell of a lot more credible than the Woody Allen accusation that Nicholas Kristof published on behalf of his good friends.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2015, 05:51 AM   #360
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Here's the first post in which Leftus claimed Clinton violated the PRA:


No. That was not against the rules at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. No time limit was specified during that time. There should have been, I agree -- but there wasn't.

If you disagree, please quote the text in the regulations which were in effect during Hillary's term in office which specify what the time limit is. It's not there.

(That's why in 2014 Barack Obama put into effect new regulations which do specify a time limit. It's a limit which current SoS John Kerry and other current and future government officials will need to respect. But it did not apply to Hillary Clinton because it went into effect after she left office. I'll devote a separate post to that.)
Each one of those rules were in effect when she was in office. The sections I refer to were in effect the entire time she was in office. In 2011, while she was in office, the President did make some changes for efficiency (EO 18539) but the text of public law 90-620 remained unimpacted. The EO basically stated that the US should try to keep all of this stuff electronic. Which, btw, when she turned over her emails she did not. They were printed.

From the GPO

§3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1297.)

3102 - 1984
3103 - 1984
3104 - 1984
3105 - 1984

The big change in 84? 1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted “Archivist” for “Administrator of General Services”.

So, can we now agree that the laws I pointed to were the laws that were in effect while she was in office?

The time limit is acts that the head of an agency must take. As the head of the agency, she took no such actions. It took 2 years after she left office for her to turn in what she was supposed to turn in. So while it doesn't give a timeline while in office, it does require someone to be in office to accomplish the task.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.